Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
“The” church has nothing to do with my being filled with the Holy Spirit. He came when I received Christ as my Lord and Saviour and I can ask the Holy Spirit daily or any time I want to to fill me. Scripture says I can do just that. I know there are phonies in every denomination and many claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit but their FRUITS will decide whether they truly are or not. THE church has little or nothing to do with it.
Many people have a prophetic gift. We have several in our church. Our former pastor has the gift of prophecy.
Yes, Quix has a PERSONAL Lord and Saviour who loves and guides him. He has asked Christ to come into his life and he did. The Holy Spirit resides in him. That doesn’t mean Quix is perfect. Not at all. Nobody is, but he tries to live the life Christ has called him to live.
Wonderful story. May we all be able to do that until we die. And let’s hope folks WILL listen and be saved. Doctrine won’t save anyone but the Word of God can if a person is open to hearing.
My prayer is always that I would decrease and that Christ would increase in my life. It has not been an easy journey but I wouldn’t trade it for anything.
I try. I have seen people come to the Lord through our music ministry to the elderly. Witnessing to your own family is the hardest. My brother is so hard against the Lord and even against me that I pray that someone else in FL can reach him.
I will give you a two-fold answer.
One, the Church does not find what St. Paul preached to be at odds with th Gospels. The Church interpretation is in harmony with the Gospels. +Paul is interpretd through the Gospels, as the Old testament is interpreted through the New Testament. Everything is harmonized. But this hamrony did not come about naturally.
Two, historically, +Peter +James, on one side, and +Paul on the other, very very much at odss with each other. The book of Acts (written after both Apostles were dead) tries to smooth things over in that respect. Even later than that, the book of 1 Peter appeared. Written towards the end of the century, it tries to mend the rift between the followers of +Peter and those of +Paul.
[Galatians 2:9]
"The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the LORD hath made even both of them." -- Proverbs 20:12 "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life." -- Proverbs 13:12
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." -- Mark 11:22-24 "And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
KOSTA: It's both.
lol. In a nutshell.
Mind-reading and ad hominem post
yawn
If the "you" is the other poster, the above is "making it personal." If the "you" is all of a certain belief, it is not but it neverthless caused resentment by not being worded clearly.
So either way:
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
“The book of Acts (written after both Apostles were dead) tries to smooth things over in that respect. Even later than that, the book of 1 Peter appeared. Written towards the end of the century, it tries to mend the rift between the followers of +Peter and those of +Paul.”
That was not the position of scholars until the Tubingen, Higher Criticism, crowd.
From F.F. Bruce, “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?”
“The New Testament was complete, or substantially complete, about AD 100, the majority of the writings being in existence twenty to forty years before this. In this country a majority of modern scholars fix the dates of the four Gospels as follows: Matthew, c. 85-90; Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; John, c. 90-100.4 I should be inclined to date the first three Gospels rather earlier: Mark shortly after AD 60, Luke between 60 and 70, and Matthew shortly after 70. One criterion which has special weight with me is the relation which these writings appear to bear to the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. My view of the matter is that Mark and Luke were written before this event, and Matthew not long afterwards.
But even with the later dates, the situation’ encouraging from the historian’s point of view, for the first three Gospels were written at a time when man, were alive who could remember the things that Jesus said and did, and some at least would still be alive when the fourth Gospel was written. If it could be determined that the writers of the Gospels used sources of information belonging to an earlier date, then the situation would be still more encouraging. .
The date of the writing of Acts will depend on the date we affix to the third Gospel, for both are parts of one historical work, and the second part appears to have been written soon after the first. There are strong arguments for dating the twofold work not long after Paul’s two years’ detention in Rome (AD 60-62)Some scholars, however, consider that the ‘former treatise’ to which Acts originally formed the sequel was not our present Gospel of Luke but an earlier draft, sometimes called ‘ProtoLuke’; this enables them to date Acts in the sixties, while holding that the Gospel of Luke in its final form was rather later.”
from Guthrie, “New Testament Introduction” 1st Peter,
“So strong is the evidence for the use of this epistle in the early church that some scholars have regarded it as proved and maintained that it was considered to be canonical as early as this word had a meaning.” There are parallels in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. These may indicate borrowing, but not necessarily. Polycarp definitely quotes from it, though he does not identify the quoted material as coming from Peter. Irenaeus, however, does quote from it, and regards it as a genuine work of Peter. From the last third of the second century on, this letter is frequently regarded as Petrine, and is cited by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, etc.
Although it may not have been used as freely in the West as in the East, there is no evidence that it was ever disputed.
…the primitive church, as far back as any evidence exists, regarded it as a genuine epistle of Peter, and thus any discussion of objections to Petrine authorship must sufficiently take account of this fact.”
Ok. Sorry.
“Ya’ll”
***If that were in fact the case then the Romanist Church would not have needed and continue to need reforming.***
The Church is made up of fallible men and needs to deal with those men. It does not need ‘reforming’ except, in the West, to reverse the dismal and unfortunate Protestanization of its buildings and some of its approaches.
We have our instructions from the Lord and from His Church.
You may or may not have received the Holy Spirit via another venue, I cannot say. All I know is that we attempt to do as we are instructed.
Apparently now much of the push for ecumenicism rests on the words "from" and "through," as if they meant the same thing, when of course, they do not.
If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son, then that is tantamount to saying the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and the Son is simply a conduit which ultimately erodes the Trinity.
Which as Rome has rightly pointed out, contradicts Scripture and many church fathers...
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" -- John 20:22"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." -- John 16:7
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]). Augustine "If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]). "[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term 'principally' because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29). "Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit' [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]). Cyril of Alexandria "Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]). Council of Toledo "We believe in one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maker of the visible and the invisible...The Spirit is also the Paraclete, who is himself neither the Father nor the Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. Therefore the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, the Paraclete is not begotten but proceeding from the Father and the Son" (Council of Toledo [A.D. 447])."The Athanasian Creed
***Protestanization of its buildings***
That’s one I never heard. Could you explain?
How do you know that the Holy Spirit resides in Quix? Do you have objective evidence?
On a side note, how are the prophecies handled, or verified?
That is the antithesis of "the story of the Bible."
It is God who first gives eyes to see and ears to hear and a new heart with which to believe. It is God alone who rebirths the fallen sinner and gives him the ability to repent and believe. All men are fallen and none seek His face unless and until God gives that man His Holy Spirit to make him into a new creature who has been covered by the blood of Christ.
Without God's gift of grace through faith which washes our sins by His regeneration and renews our minds in order to believe and be saved, we are all lost.
Read Ephesians 1. It's all there.
"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" -- 2 Timothy 2:25
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:16
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" -- Titus 3:5 "Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee" -- Psalm 65:4
You're just not stepping back far enough. Yes, all men are responsible for obeying God. But the only men who will be able to please God are those whom God has first given grace through faith to know the truth and believe.
All of God.
No man is restrained from seeking God except by his own fallen nature. But only those who have been born again by God alone will even want to come to Him. And all those who ask, will receive. But they ask by the will and purpose and predestining plan of God which He ordained from before the foundation of the world for His glory.
It's not an open story. It's already finished.
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure" -- Isaiah 46:10
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.